They're hacking the government. The government is powerless to stop them in many cases. They're hacking domestic firms. Again, the government stands helpless. Think we're talking about China hacking the U.S.? Nope.

In an interesting twist, this week China -- the nation that U.S. security firms claim is the number one cyberaggressor -- claimed it is really the victim of a relentless and brutal cyberassault from the U.S.

The Defense Ministry and China Military Online websites have faced a serious threat from hacking attacks since they were established, and the number of hacks has risen steadily in recent years.

According to the IP addresses, the Defense Ministry and China Military Online websites were, in 2012, hacked on average from overseas 144,000 times a month, of which attacks from the U.S. accounted for 62.9 percent.

In addition to accusing the U.S. of victimizing his nation online, he also says that U.S. government officials were uncooperative in increasing "international cooperation" to stop hacking. He implies the U.S. may be engaging in hypocrisy by openly expanding its own cyberwarfare capabilities, while leveling accusations against his nation, commenting, "We hope that the U.S. side can explain and clarify this."

China claims the U.S. is the real cyberaggressor. [Image Source: Asia Society]

So is there any truth in his claims? Well, according to security experts "kinda". In a recent report by Akama Technologies, Inc. (AKAM), the U.S. was second in global attack traffic. Approximately 13 percent of attacks come from the U.S.

In other words, China's claims are certainly feasible. However, it is thought that much, if not all of the U.S. attack traffic originates from the private sector in the U.S.

China, by contrast, is number one in attack traffic. 33 percent of global attack traffic appears to come from China. And what's more, while the Chinese government denies playing any role in hacking, a large part of that traffic is thought to come from a secret unit in the People's Liberation Army (PLA).

Government defense spending is beloved Keynesian economic stimulus at work.

Many of the jobs require US citizenship, so they cannot be outsourced. Other countries understand the need to keep military R&D and arms production in house, so you do not have to worry about nasty trade wars by favoring domestic arms companies / manufacturing like if say, one passed a "Buy American" provision in infrastructure economic stimulus package.

The Common Defense Clause grants a constitutional justification for using defense spending to stimulate the economy, similar to how the General Welfare clause can justify many social programs.

Take it, I agree stocking up like we are going to fight a major conventional war is not the best use of such economic stimulus (e.g. buying tanks, heavy bombers, attack submarines, heavy cruisers, etc) since the only countries that could last more than a few months (or weeks) against a fraction of the US armed forces in a conventional war (counter-insurgency / counter-terror are different beasts) have nuclear weapons or are our allies.

It would be much better to hand the bulk of the $$$ being spent on the Army's / Navy's heavy weapons over to DARPA, which IMO, is every bit the equal to NASA at innovating. Heck, divert the bulk of the Air Force's heavy weapons budget over to NASA too. Rocket ships make for better PR than pure military equipment (and tech that goes into them can be recycled into military equipment). Spend the rest of the budget on non-conventional warfare (e.g. special forces, electronic / cyber-warfare, propaganda tools).

I agree with you.. I dont have a problem with a strong miltary research and development program. I just find it hard to accept the princple of starting/instigating conflict in order to fill the books with orders.

Were those conflicts really started to fill the books with orders? Panama was so short it couldn't have expended much equipment. Bosnia was a NATO action after lot of public protest that we couldn't just stand by and do nothing while genocide was going on. Libya was similar. And Afghanistan was a reaction to 9/11 (though Al Qaeda would probably argue that was a reaction to U.S. involvement in the Middle East).

The first Gulf War, whether you believe it was justified or not, was started by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. (And yes I'm aware of the conspiracy theory that the U.S. led on Saddam and "tricked" him into invading. The hard fact remains that it was Saddam's call to make, and if Bush Sr. had really wanted to he could've continued the war into Iraq.)

That leaves just the second war in Iraq, which from Bush's actions seems like he thought it would be over within a year or two, if not months. The geopolitical goals behind the wars seem to have been much more important than filling orders for military equipment.

quote: Any kind of war is a bonanza for defence contractors/suppliers.

It might be nice, just for once, to see someone who actually understands the US defense industry speak out. Alas this has not been the case so far.

War is economically good for some small players in that realm but not for the big boys. War diverts funds from the projects that make the big profit margins into lesser margin products. Ask Boeing if they want war or the $$ spent on that war to oversee GBMD. Ask Lock-mart the same thing. You parroting the same tired crap that most no-nothings spew. The threat of "war" (or something bad) gets $$s spent (see Homeland's budget spent for saving us from various obtuse threats), not the actual warmaking itself. Bullets, missiles, etc are cheap $$ compared to the real projects.